In a previous post, I complained that the story about the guy who threatened to sue Charter TV because he couldn't stop watching should never have made its way into print. "Threats" of lawsuits aren't newsworthy. Even more bothersome, the-man-addicted-to-cable-TV had all the earmarks of a story that would be seized upon by gullible Americans blindly marching along behind the tort reform lobby, so worn out from lawyers and lawsuits that they can no longer separate fact from fiction.
To follow up, here are some more examples (this time from weblogs) of writers who have misstated the story. Remember, the man did not actually sue -- he only threatened to sue.
--In a weblog by an "associate professorial lecturer" at George Washington University ("a Wisconsin man has sued Charter Cable");
--In a blog managed by the Harvard Federalist Society ("a Wisconsin man is suing his cable company")
--In a blog by a computer programmer ("man sues cable company") (okay, this one gets a break -- he seems like a regular guy).
There's more about the Charter TV lawsuit-that-never-happened at The Curmudgeonly Clerk.
You are right to clarify (and I will amend my post) that this moron in Wisconsin has only threatened to sue; but this in no way alters the point of my argument -- that Dumouchel seems to claim (or threatens to claim) that he was forced by Charter Cable into some undesireable behavior.
This is newsworthy because it shows how our legal system has taken us to a point where individuals seek (or threaten to seek) legal remedies for their own stupidity and/or laziness. Members of our legal system have no problem with such frivolity, because they benefit financially.
Furthermore, my assertion that price levels will go up because of such threats still stands; even though Dumouchel has "only" threatened a lawsuit, Charter Cable will have to assemble a legal team and come up with a preemptive strategy. And last I checked lawyers don't do this (or anything) for free.
Posted by: Dr. O'Gara | February 06, 2004 at 09:33 AM